No the Russians would not want Clinton to win. Obama imposed crippling sanctions on Russia after they invaded Crimea, they want those sanctions lifted and Trump has many Russian friendlies in his inner circle. Chief among those sanctions was a crippling of massive multi billion dollar deal with Exxon Mobil. Guess who's Trump's Secreatary of State choice is ... Rex Tillerson, former CEO of Exxon Mobil, given the "medal of friendship" from Putin. But I'm sure that's all just a coincidence. 

Trump's "America First" is just an empty slogan. Where is the currency manipulation hammer he claimed he would put on China within the first 30 days of his presidency? Yeah he sure bailed out of that fast. It's all bullshit. He's a snake oil salesman he'll say whatever he needs to if it sounds like a nice slogan. Much like "Drain the Swamp" ... by hiring the most millionaire/billionaire loaded cabinet ever. 

You were never going to find anything conclusive. If it's hacking, Russia can easily just say "well, they're not affiliated directly to us, that could be anyone, it just happened to use a Russian script and be traced back to Russian hackers, but we don't control what they do". You think they're dumb enough to have some "official government hacking agency" that would leave behind an obvious stamp and they get caught red handed. 

Oh yeah, freezing US assets, that stopped Russia from invading Crimea. Obama's sanctions wouldn't influence Putin in any way, but they were harsh. Give me a break. Obama was a shill willing to sell himself out to anyone just to say hey guys, I did this (Paris Accords, Iran deal, etc.). Obama was the expert of selling the idea of making huge deals without actually doing it, he was able to be bought out by other groups in order to push an agenda.

To be fair, Trump has done quite a bit in his first 6 months in office. I knew he wasn't going to do everything immediately, based on how Washington works and for the pure fact that Congressional Democrats would try to push a lot off so things would go as slowly as possible. President's throughout history have not necessarily gotten everything done in the first 100 days (Obama sure didn't), so holding Trump to the 'He Has to Do Everything He Promised in the First Month or He's the Worst' is incoherently wrong.

Lastly, there's no proof. Nothing.

There was no hacking. No intelligence agency has even investigated "hacking" the vote. Votes were not changed, and this isn't even a question. It bothers me a lot to see headlines and anchors continue to refer to it as "hacking." Even the DNC email thing was not hacking, it's the fact that he left his password as "password". 

*Please note that I am in no way defending Trump at all. But the "hacking" narrative is so completely wrong it gets me riled up.

The burden of proof lies in the person making the positive claim. We have been waiting for several months and considering how invested the Democrats were as well as some of the neocons like John McCain and Lindsay Graham, there is no excuse for the lack of evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt. They don't necessarily need to find all the pieces of the puzzle, but enough that people can rationally interpret the big picture. However, 8 months and nothing to go off of. If you are going to investigate someone, then you better damn well know that you need to be aware of "innocent until proven guilty" and fulfil your burden of proof or otherwise, you'll come off looking foolish. Saying that you will never find anything conclusive is a massive copout and lame excuse.

Not this American

It seems that drudgereport is now the most visited news site after msn (which is start page in IE).


https://www.similarweb.com/blog/us-media-publications-ranking-may-2017

It would be interesting to talk about this topic, about human motivation and what are the true drivers for our opinions and whether it's true that we're far more primitive than we believe. This happens to be something I've thought about a lot, and I'm very well aware of this view. 

But you mixed two things with each other: the formal way of discussion with the opinion on a subject, and you ended up misrepresenting me a bit unfairly.

1. I have an argument with the-pi-guy where I claim that Trump is hated for his conservative agenda rather than his flawed persona, and I claim that globalist powers have an interest in destabilizing traditional institutions and values in the West, in order to reach their ultimate goal. 

2. We end up in confusion about the word "destabilize" and I unfortunately then accuse him of unintellectual argumentation, drawing a parallel to the Swedish migration debate. I see in hindsight now that Pi-guys usage of destabilize is more accurate and therefore my accusation was wrong.

3. When I expressed my frustration about people using unintellectual arguments, it concerned the form of discussion, not the content of the topic being discussed. We all want to uphold an intellectual level of discussion using intelligent, coherent, logically stringent arguments.

4. I didn't claim that my deep motives and opinions about a certain topic, like nationalism or immigration, are intellectually based. We didn't touch that angle at all here. So whether or not that's actually the case is for another discussion. But you sort of went ahead and declared that I have "primitive reasoning at the core".

basically what you are doing with conservatives btw

I'm not asking for conservatives to be deported all pushing an agenda where all conservatives are evil because some of them break the law (I'm sure there are many that do). 

Nor do I deny our primitive animal heritage. Tribalism all stems from that, there's nothing magical or fancy about it. That story is really "tale as old as time". We dress it up today with fancy clothes and claim it's intellectual and blah, blah, blah, but it's just a bunch of monkeys who are afraid of each other. That's really the root of the issue when you deconstruct it and it repeats over and over and over and over again in human history and will continue to do so for a good deal longer. Our basic instincts in many cases are not noble at all, while we can be altruistic, we can also equally be selfish little shits. It's the human condition for better or worse. 

See, shit like this is exactly why mainstream media outlets are only hurting they own cause. Case in point - I never liked Trump from the outset, but have always hated and distrusted mainstream media more. So when they all almost unanimously try to constantly stuff anti-Trump propaganda down our throats, especially when the propaganda is made up, I can't help but wonder.. "huh.. maybe Trump is really onto something here?" It only makes me empathize with him more.

I don't it sounds a bit immature and stupid, but if 90% of the media outlets were constantly fighting for Trump and defending him rather than attacking him, I'd probably hate and distrust him far more. Just the way I am, I guess - I thrive on playing devil's advocate and questioning everything. Because so often in this world you learn that the majority or "mainstream" viewpoint is misguided and wrong.

At the very least, these outlets need to drop the phony Russia BS and sensationalism about "SEXIST! RACIST!!!1" and focus on REAL reasons to distrust Trump - lack of any political experience whatsoever, his ridiculous wall that will somehow span the entire southern US and cost billions, his seemingly close ties to the likes of Saudi Arabia, Trumpcare, closeness to Wallstreet cronies, etc..